Where does everyone stand on the subject of microtransactions?

I have become fed up with the growing trend of ridiculous microtransacrions for every game i buy. I understand that some people like to be able to buy additional content for a game but when it starts to appear that you are not getting a complete version of the game then I have a problem with it. I recently became a tester and I hope i can give nmore insight into this subject because i believe its gotten way out of control. if your interested in being a tester... https://tinyurl.com/y7fkzmlk

Where does everyone stand on the subject of microtransactions?

Depends on the micro-transaction_

Paywalls/ locked data that is part of your base purchase (modes, upgrades, etc), gambling for in-game content (lootboxes)= bad

New actual content after release, purely cosmetic, or other later added features that only expand on the game for longevity= not bad

*As you can see I don't view either as great, but at least one is less insulting towards customers, take a guess which that is?

If it impacts the gameplay in any way, it's cancerous. If it's cosmetic it's mostly fine. I say "mostly" because developers may decide to hold back content (available clothes or haircuts) in order to sell it on the side, and that would be almost as bad.

DLC's/Expansions that add actual content to an already complete game a la The Witcher 3 or Horizon Zero Dawn- Yay

Charging for things that should already be there like customization options, the rest of the story, or damn near the only means to progress without taking years a la Destiny, Black Ops 4, or Final Fantasy XV- Nay

@Black_Knight_00: 100% agree.

I never and never will buy microtransactions they're cancer.

Not always true, let's not forget Resident Evil 5s Versus mode which was seen as a micro-transaction. The files for the mode was already on our release discs. Should be viewed as an expansion, however because you just purchase a data key to gain access of something you technically own, it's actually a micro-transaction purchase.

But yeah, for the most part expansions are awesome and very different with how they work. It's basically a large extention towards a game. Usually a third the size of the game it's for.

Best one I recall is The Shivering Isles because it's better than the base game. Day-one 'expansions' though are when publishers chop up games and disrespect the interested audience for further profit. And because most are on the disc, it's a micro-transaction purchase. Ubisoft and Square Enix do it quite often.

Admirable, but with how games function within the past decade you're missing out on almost 50% most games content with that stance.

I dislike microtransactions. Why can't it be like the good old days when games were in it's complete/finished state on a disc? I just can't agree with paying extra for additional content. Why should I pay extra when I bought the game in the first place? I might as well wait for 5 years when they re-release the complete version.

Microtransactions, DLC's and add-ons get the middle finger.

I liked it better when you bought a game and it was complete.

@LJS9502_basic: this.

Microtransactions are fine, but as add-ons to a complete game.

@RSM-HQ: Exactly what you said.

Done properly it can benefit a game considerably. When they don't intrude on the gameplay or the game's thematic direction it can fund support of a game well past it's expected death date. There's no better example of this than Team Fortress 2. TF2 was released 11 years ago. That game is over a decade old and it still has tens of thousands of players and continues to receive support and content from the devs. A success mimicked by Valve's Counterstrike GO which has not long past it's 6 year anniversary and it has seen monumental success and continued support, largely due to how Valve monetises their games. It is a formula that has found success in a number of other big name games like Rainbow Six and Overwatch.

When it is done improperly, it can be the single contributing factor to a game's early demise. An otherwise good game can be completely undermined when monetisation is wormed into the core gameplay experience.

I believe post launch monetisation is important for a game's long term health but it has be done in a way that compliments gameplay rather than intrudes upon it.

Can be done right. Usually done wrong which negatively impacts the game.

I always steer away from games where they lean you into buying them or are shoved in your face like the free-to-play ones. Who the hell would want to wait 12 hours in real time or be forced to grind for eternity just to continue playing? How is that fun? What kind of game is that?

I think they’re a crock of **** that works to do nothing but line the pockets of fat cat laughing CEOs while apologists excuse them under the misguided and naive notion that they’re required for the sustainability of the AAA realm.

You’d think after the success of RDR 2 (a game FILLED to the brim with a ridiculous amount of content that could have easily been easy territory for exploitative monetization, yet a game nevertheless incredibly profitable without them, and that’s even before online with micotransactions) these morons would get a clue instead of arguing against their own best interests.

Yet still the corporate apologists keep trucking on.

I don’t necessarily hate them outright, it all depends on how they’re used. I’ve played games with them in it and as long as they aren’t intrusive and negatively impact my enjoyment of the game then I don’t have a problem with them. Personally I’ve never purchased micro transactions, I prefer buying dlc that expands the game.